Does Literature need “decolonisation”?

Examples: Beowulf, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

I'd forgotten that and of course Chaucer isn't easy, a transcript is usually needed.

From Blinko on 25th:

'We'll be rewriting history next.'

an interesting comment and worth consideration. History is rarely without bias and is usually written in the eyes of the winner.

I remember vividly the days when, as a child, we were raised to believe the 'Indians' were the bad, cruel and nasty guys, and the 'cowboy' the goodies. We all know the truth now.

The French history books used in French schools today still have a very strong bias, which covers over a lot of the less glorious events of past French history. In the eyes of the beholder indeed. For books, it is not only the choice, but how they are taught and with which bias, be it cultural, political, religious, etc, etc.

I wonder how 'to kill a Mockingbird' is read and discussed differently perhaps- be it in New York, San Francisco or deepest Alabama.

Is it not said that “history is written by the victors”?
Certainly the case with “Cowboys and Indians”

Oh and Paw who had a French primary education was taught that the French won the battle of Agincourt.

Who says MawBroon finds Scots dialect unacceptable?*trisher*?
Such calumnies!
I used to win prizes for verse-speaking at the Borders Muical Festival for Scottish AND English poetry.
Twasnae me said that!

www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/lallan

Perhaps I have misunderstood Baggs but I would strongly dispute that all Scots Literature is/was written in English, and that “dialect”refers only to the spoken language, unlike the position of Schwyzerdeutsch and German in Switzerland.
Lallans is quite unique.

Glaswegian and Lallans are very different things.

The only appalling thing about this issue is that the Telegraph published a story that was full of lies, put a large photograph of one of the young women involved ( who then received sexist and racist abuse) and then when their lies were revealed published a tiny retraction on page 2. The Telegraph is on its way to becoming as much of a rag as the DM and I’m surprised that educated GNers believe its rubbish so quickly and easily - maybe because they wanted it to be true so they could have a go?

And maybe not maryeliza

What is wrong with widening the curriculum to include writers that reflect different cultures or a different world view from that which is generally presented?

Funny that the owners of the DT care so much about keeping our Eng Lit courses full of proper English books ( you know the sort written by white English men) but care not a fig about paying their fair share of taxes to support England to be the sort of society they want it to be ( and yes I do know about the myth of editorial independence)

Just catching up with this thread an have skipped on from the OP ...
I think it is a good thing to encourage awareness and discourse of significant 'Eastern' as well as 'Western' literature and to raise awareness of different cultural viewpoints. This should mean broadening the curriculum, not 'ditching' ... a good reading list should encompass a breadth of significant texts from different cultures and a good tutor should also be able to point students towards further enriching reading.

As the mother and MiL of English teachers I was shocked to find how much the curriculum is being restricted and narrowed in this regard at GCSE and A level.

And yes, history does need rewriting.

Yyyyyyy to the rewriting of history

From who’s perspective would you like history to be rewritten?
Each country in the world already does this in regard to their own past history, especially where wars are concerned.
As regards the University ( Cambridge in this case) it depends what the majority want and what fits into the category of English literature, but surely the basic criteria for that is that the book is written in English ( not translated).

History is being rewritten all the time - some of ours is due for a good rethink as so much has been airbrushed and so many less powerful/ powerless groups have been ignored. I don’t think anyone is arguing for translated books to be part of an English Lit syllabus are they?

Whose perspective Lemongrove?

Well, let's go back to those already mentionned 'Cowboys' and 'Indians' - as children we were told the goodies were the former, and the baddies the lattrer. Now most of us would agree- perhaps not Trump and his supporters, that it was not the case. So history should be re-written to be less biased, and look at the truth of what happened and how- as neutrally as can be.

How do you think history was taught in Hitler's Germany- and how do you think it is being taught now. And through literature too, like 'Anne Frank' or 'The Book Thief', 'The Boy in Pyjamas' and so on.

Thank you for the lecture jura2 but we were talking about the literature/ history of the UK or I certainly thought we were.
History is always written by the winners and it takes a long long time for an opposing view to be heard.

I don't think jura was giving a "lecture" - she was just giving an example of how events can be seen very differently when viewed from different perspectives and with the passing of time.

I thought the cowboys and indians example demonstrated this very well. It doesn't matter that it occurred in a different country - similar simplistic and misleading portrayals of events have occurred throughout the world, including here. I don't suppose it is possible to arrive at one simple "truth" but a diversity of opinion and perspective is essential to at least acknowledge that there may be a different way of looking at things.

I remember quite clearly as a child hearing on the news reports about the Mau Mau and, from those reports, forming the view that they must be the most wicked and frightening savages. Recent reparations made by the British government to members of the Mau Mau who were systematically tortured by soldiers in the British Army indicated the "bad guys" were on our "side" too.

So, you are saying there are two sides to every story, well I think we all know that!
The Native Americans did do sone gruesome things, and so did the American soldiers , the Mau Mau did do barbaric things and the British Army were also savage in retaliation to it.
That’s why I point out that it takes a long time for the truth, i.e both sides of the story to come out and be considered.
At the time it happens, it will always be told from the point of view of the country actually telling the story.
That’s also why I ask who’s perspective would you like to show ( just after the event) history, or accounts of recent history would not be any more correct by showing only, say the Mau Mau uprising.

It has to be remembered that all countries go in for some airbrushing when it comes to their own history / wars etc.
But that eventually, the whole rounded story does come out.

History needs to be written from a lot of perspectives. I think good historians genuinely try to do this.

True, but it can only be done a long time after the event, which is a shame.